Saturday, June 2, 2012

The Anti - Polygamy Raids: Evidence that Mormons only accept monogamy as something that they must temporarily tolerate.

This website exists for educational and non commercial purposes. It uses copyright works under the fair use doctrine. There is no intent to imply any approval of this website by any person other than the author.

It's not about whether or not Romney is a secret polygamist. It's about lying and deception.

I agree that monogmy especially as we know it is a crock. For men of means especially it's always been a fiction. They've always had access to mistresses, prostitutes, women under their employ, etc. Monogamy was intended for certain women to adhere to, so that these men could be sure that they really were "baby's daddy".

Mormon style polygamy takes this to a higher level. I am not even so much shouting about it as I am shouting about mormon secrecy, dishonesty, deceptiveness about it.

They simply flat out lie when they praise monogamous heterosexuality as their norm. They will do and say whatever it takes to get access to power. Their ultimate goal is domination. They tried it in Utah.

The Anti-Polygamy Raids

If one searches around the bloggernacle, you’ll find a snarky comment about how the church traded polygamy for statehood, or that the church just wimped-out on polygamy.  Such comments don’t seem to take into account how much pressure the US government was putting on the church–it was literally trying to snuff it out if the church didn’t back down from polygamy.  I’d like to get into some of these details leading up to the Manifesto.  I talked about the Manifesto previously in the context of whether the prophet would ever lead the church astray.  It should be noted that the church had been fighting anti-polygamy legislation for nearly 30 years, so I think it should be noted that the Manifesto banning polygamy in 1890 was not a spur-of-the-moment quick capitulation.  UPDATE:  I just finished Forgotten Kingdom, and I want to add some additional information.  I’ve highlighted this in purple below.
While polygamy was practiced during the lifetime of Joseph Smith, it was a secret doctrine.  Rumors of Joseph’s polygamy occur in the Kirtland Era of the early 1830′s.  The preface to section 132 in the Doctrine & Covenants reads:
Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Nauvoo, Illinois, recorded July 12, 1843, relating to the new and everlasting covenant, including the eternity of the marriage covenant, as also plurality of wives. HC 5: 501–507. Although the revelation was recorded in 1843, it is evident from the historical records that the doctrines and principles involved in this revelation had been known by the Prophet since 1831.
The practice was not announced publicly until 1852, and the actual revelation was not added to the D&C until 1876.  I talked about the Nauvoo Expositor, which published allegations of Joseph’s polygamy.  Joseph directed the press be destroyed, which resulted in his arrest and eventual murder at the Carthage Jail.
What is most ironic in all this is Utah’s support of the Republican Party, which was founded June 17, 1856.  As part of the initial convention, the platform adopted which included a pointed reference to polygamy.
The delegates got right down to business the first day by adopting a platform. The key plank was firm opposition to the extension of slavery. “It is the duty of Congress to prohibit in the territories those twin relics of barbarism, polygamy and slavery.” The polygamy reference was aimed at the Mormon settlement in Utah territory.
It should be noted that Abraham Lincoln was the first Republican President of the US.  Prior to becoming a Republican, Lincoln served as a member of the US House of Representatives from Illinois (1847-1849) in the Whig party.  With the outbreak of the Civil War, Lincoln’s first priority was slavery, so he did not spend much time worrying about the polygamy issue.  However, in 1862, Lincoln signed the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act which (from Wikipedia)
banned plural marriage and limited church and non-profit ownership in any territory of the United States to $50,000.[1] The act targeted the Mormon church ownership in theUtah territory. The measure had no funds allocated for enforcement, and President Lincoln chose not enforce this law; instead Lincoln gave Brigham Young tacitpermission to ignore the Morrill Act in exchange for not becoming involved with the Civil War.[2] General Patrick Edward Connor, commanding officer of the federal forces garrisoned at Fort Douglas, Utah beginning in 1862 was explicitly instructed not to confront the Mormons over this or any other issue.
The footnote at Wikipedia is especially interesting.  Quoting from the book, Firmage, Edwin Brown; Mangrum, Richard Collin (2001), Zion in the courts, University of Illinois Press, p. 139,ISBN 0252069803,
“Having signed the Morrill Act, Abraham Lincoln reportedly compared the Mormon Church to a log he had encountered as a farmer that was ‘too hard to split, too wet to burn and too heavy to move, so we plow around it. That’s what I intend to do with the Mormons. You go back and tell Brigham Young that if he will let me alone, I will let him alone.’”
I’ve been reading a book called Forgotten Kingdom by David Bigler, and General Connor plays prominently in that book.  He felt the Mormons were treasonous, and did not like them.  But I’ll save that for another post….
If the church had capitulated at this point, I can understand critics who say that the church traded polygamy for statehood.  The church had been applying for statehood for 40 years when it finally happened, and were always ignored by Congress.  In fact, the state of Utah is less than half the size of the original terriotory of Deseret.  Congress split the Deseret Territory, and created the territory of Nevada.  Congress continued to take away slices of Utah and added them to Nevada in 1861, 1864, and 1866.  Check out this map.  Nevada even became a state before Utah, even though it was created after Utah.
Utah continued to practice polygamy in defiance of federal law for another 20 years following the Morrill Act.  Congress made several attempts to handle “The Mormon Question.  Great Basin Kingdom, by Leonard Arrington (former church historian) documents some of these laws on page 357.  (Much more detail is there.)
  • The Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act of 1862 – passed.
  • The Wade Act of 1866- failed to pass.  It would have prohibited church officers from solemnizing marriages, would have taxed the church, taken over the Nauvoo Legion, and sent federal officials to take over all government responsibilities, among other things.
  • The Cullom Bill of 1869-70 – passed House but failed Senate.  Plural wives would have been deprived of immunity as witnesses involving their husband.  It would have authorized the President to send army of 25,000 to Utah, and would confiscate all property of any Mormon.
  • The Ashley Bill of 1869 – failed to pass.   Here’s an exact quote:  “The bill provided for “the dismemberment” of Utah by transferring large slices of it to Nevada, Wyoming, and Colorado.”
  • The Poland Act of 1874 – passed.  Gave federal attorney general and federal jurisdiction  over criminal, civil and chancery (equity) cases in Utah.
  • The Edmunds Act of 1882 – passed.  Quoting from page 358, the act
put teeth” in the 1862 law and attempted to eliminate the Mormon Church as a power in Utah by vesting the political machinery of the territory in federal non-Mormon appointive officers.  Specifically, the Edmunds Act provided heavy penalties for the practice of polygamy: defined cohabitation with a polygamous wife as a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed $300, by imprisonment not to exceed six months, or both; declared all persons guilty of polygamy or cohabitation incompetent for jury service; and disfranchised and declared ineligible for public office all persons guilty of polygamy or unlawful cohabitation…all elective offices were declared vacant…persons professing belief in polygamy or cohabitation as a religious principle, whether or not proved guilty of their practice, were ineligible to vote and to hold public office…in the first year of its existence it had excluded some 12,000 men and women from registration and voting.
…page 359
there was widespread belief that the Edmunds Act was unconstitutional.  “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or interfering with the free exercise thereof” read the Constitution, and plural marriage was a holy, religious principle to the Mormons….When Rudger Clawson, a leader of the community of Brigham City, and later to become one of the Twelve Apostles of the church, was convicted of polygamy in October 1884, deputies began to move through the territory gathering evidence against polygamists.  And when, on March 3, 1885, the Supreme Court denied  Clawson’s appeal and upheld the constitutionality of the law, territorial officials commenced the intensive prosecution of Mormon leaders in Utah and elsewhere known as “The Raid.”
Polygamous marriage being difficult to establish in the courts, the most common charge against the Mormons what of unlawful cohabitation, punishable by a $300 fine or six months in jail, or both.
There were 1,004 convictions for unlawful cohabitation under the Edmunds Act between 1884 and 1893, and another 31 for polygamy, but these hardly measure the magnitude of the effect of the Act upon Mormon society.  The period from 1885 to 1890 was marked by intensive “polyg hunts” for “cohabs.”  Officials of the church made a grave decision to fight each and every charge under the law.  Having taken sacred covenants to remain true to their wives “for time and all eternity,” they regarded it as unthinkable that they should desert these women in order to avoid punishment provided in the law of Babylon.  Accordingly, when it became clear early in 1885 that rigorous enforcement and interpretation of the law were to be held constitutional, church leaders–nearly all of whom had one or more plural wives–went “underground.”  Leading out in this action was the church president, John Taylor, whose last public appearance was in the Salt Lake City Tabernacle, February 1, 1885.  President Taylor died while in hiding on July 25, 1887–a martyr, so the Mormons thought, to the principle of his faith.
…page 360
With almost all leaders of Latter-day Saint communities in prison or in hiding, business establishments were abandoned, or were kept in operation by inexperienced wives and children.  The ownership of the co-operatives drifted into the hands of a few individuals and eventually were converted into private enterprises.  Those United Orders which had survived until this period were discontinued.  There were no further meetings of Zion’s Central Board of Trade.  Almost every business history, in short, shows stagnation; almost every family history records widespread suffering and misery.  Above all, the church, as prime stimulator, financier, and regulator of the Mormon economy, was forced to withdraw from participation in most phases of activity.  The Raid, in other words, was a period of crippled group activity of every type, of decline in cooperative trade and industry–a period when, above all, church economic support was essential but not forthcoming–a period when planning would have saved much, but when planners dared not plan.
A more despairing situation than theirs, at that hour, has never been faced by an American community.  Practically every Mormon man of any distinction was in prison, or had just served his term, or had escaped into exile.  Hundreds of Mormon women had left their homes and their children to flee from the officers of the law; many had been behind prison bars for refusing to answer the questions put to them in court; more were concealed, like outlaws, in the houses of friends…Old men were coming out of prison, broken in health.
The Edmunds-Tucker Act
Nevertheless, the Edmunds Law was unable to force a change in the attitude of Latter-day Saint authorities.  It was an unwilling cross, but one which the create majority of members seemed prepared to bear rather than yield on what they regarded a religious principle.  Congress therefore moved almost immediately to increase the pressure, and after considering several proposals during a number of sessions, adopted, on February 19, 1887, an amendment to the 1862 law known as the Edmunds-Tucker Act.  Enacted into law without the signature of President Grover Cleveland, this “Anti-Polygamy Act,” as it was entitled, amended the 1862 law to provide as follows:
1.  That the Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, insofar as it had, or pretended to have, any legal existence, was dissolved.  The United States Attorney General was directed to instituted proceedings to accomplish dissolution.
2.  That the Attorney General institute proceedings to forfeit and escheat all property, both real and personal, of the dissolved church corporation held in violation of the 1862 limitation of $50,000, which was reaffirmed.  The property was to be disposed of by the Secretary of the Interior and the proceeds applied to the use and benefit of the district schools of Utah.
The books continues on, with 3 more items, including the abolition of women suffrage.  (Utah was the first or second state to allow women to vote–quite progressive, eh?)  I want to point out that as a result of the 1862 legislation prohibiting the church from owning more that $50,000 in property, most of the properties were put into the title of individual church leaders.  Continuing from page 361,
The Edmunds-Tucker Act was a direct bid to destroy the temporal power of the Mormon Church.  Congressional leaders reasoned that the church would have to yield on the principle of plural marriage or suffer destruction as an organization of power and influence.  Church leaders did not see the matter in this light, however.  They believed (and were supported in this belief by several constitutional lawyers of national reputation) that several features of the Edmunds-Tucker Act were unconstitutional.  They further declared that they could not revoke the principle of polygamy:  Only God could do that; and, if He so decided, He would do so by direct revelation to the church–not by prohibitory national legislation.  Just as they had refused to surrender on the issue of plural marriage after the passage of the Edmunds Act, they now refused to surrender the role of trustee-in-trust in the world of business.
The book details how many properties, including the Tithing Office, were placed or sold into private church members and/or stake hands, and hidden as much as possible.  A series of legal battles ensued as federal officials tried to track down church assets.  However, the government did uncover many of these transactions, and took control of the assets.  Arrington goes into great detail about many of these trials.  A trustee was appointed, and he charged enormous fees to maintain records of these properties.  He was removed later, but many of the church properties were squandered as payment for his services.  From page 376,
administration officials, and Senator Edmunds and the Committee on Territories began to express a not unnatural interest in the handling of the properties confiscated.  In general, they were alarmed at the manner in which the receivership were eating into the fund.
…page 377
Four days after the above letter was written, Dyer resigned from the position of receiver…
In January 1889, the church challenged the constitutionality of the confiscated properties, but lost again in the Supreme Court.  From page 375,
The court stated that the church had taken property dedicated to religious and charitable uses and had devoted it to spread and promote the doctrines of the church, “one of the distinguishing features” of which was polygamy–”a crime against the laws, and abhorrent to the sentiments and feelings of the civilized world.”  The state had “a perfect right to prohibit polygamy” and to apply the misdirected church properties to “other charitable objects.”
The majority Supreme Court opinion read,
“Under these circumstances we have no doubt of the power of Congress to do as it did.”
However, the opinion was not unanimous.  Chief Justice Fuller and associate justices Field and Lamar
wrote a short but vigorous dissent based on the States’ Rights doctrine which had reached its farthest in the Dred Scott decision.  Wrote the Chief Justice:
In my opinion, Congress is restrained, nor merely by the limitations expressed in the Constitution, but also by the absence of any grant of power, express or implied in that instrument….  If this property was accumulated for purposes declared illegal, that does not justify its arbitrary disposition by judicial legislation.  In my judgment, its diversion under this Act of Congress is in contravention of specific limitations in the Constitution; unauthorized, expressly or by implication, by any of its provisions; and in disregard of the fundamental principle that the legislative power of the United States, as exercised by the agents of the people of this Republic, is delegated and not inherent.
From page 377,
The second effect of the Supreme Court decision upholding the constitutionality of the Edmunds-Tucker Act was the church “Manifesto” proclaiming an end to the performance of plural marriage.
The Supreme Court decision on May 19, 1890 was nearly the final blow.  David Bigler, author ofForgotten Kingdom page 354 outlines an even more ominous problem.
What made this ruling truly ominous was the appointment two months later of Henry W. Lawrence, a leader of the Godbeite schism, as receiver of church property.  He replace the moderate former U.S. marshal Frank H. Dyer, who had earlier agreed to keep hands off the church’s temples under the provision of the law that exempted building used exclusively for “the worship of God.”  The Utah Supreme Court had approved this determination.  Now Lawrence and U.S. attorney Charles Varian, reappointed in 1889 by President Harrison, made it known they intended to overturn the agreement on the ground that temples in Logan, St. George, and Manti did not qualify for exemption since they were not places of public worship.  If upheld, this move would lead to confiscation of the church’s holiest places, where its most sacred ordinances were performed, including marriages.
Arrington writes in Great Basin Kingdom on page 355 that Church president Wilford Woodruff wrote in his journal on Sept 25, 1890,
“I have arrived at a point in the history of my life as the president of the Church…where I am under the necessity of acting for the temporal salvation of the church.”  On that date, just four months after the fateful decision of the Supreme Court, President Woodruff issued the “Official Declaration” which proclaimed the end of polygamy among the Mormons:
Inasamuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriages, which laws have been pronounced constitutional by the court of last resort, I hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws, and to use my influence with the members of the Church over which I preside to have them do likewise.
In the October 6 session of the general conference of the church, the congregation “unanimously sustained” this declaration as “authoritative and binding.”  Polygamy no longer had official sanction.
Forgotten Kingdom adds additional detail here.  From page 356,
While many treated the manifesto with skepticism, one who took it at face value was the magistrate who had sent more men to prison for violating  the marriage laws than anyone else.  The day after it was sustained, Judge Charles Zane on October 7 said that he would record the church “opposed to polygamy hereafter, unless something happened to change my opinion,” and he began only to fine violators, but not impose prison time. [Footnote 55 goes further:  In a pointed reminder that the manifesto was not issued as a revelation, Governor Thomas said that "we must not forget that they have been taught to believe and do believe that when their leaders speaks with a 'thus saith the Lord' he but gives utterance to the will of the Divine Master."  The Utah Commission in September 1891 reported eighteen alleged polygamous  marriages over the prior year.  See Report of the Governor of Utah, 1891, House Exec. Doc. 1, 412, 425.]
Arrington, author of Great Basin Kingdom concurs with Bigler.  He continues on page 377,
“Polyg hunts” by deputy marshals became less and less frequent; judges showed more and more leniency in dealing with “cohabs” brought before the law.  Government attorneys adopted the policy of being “light” and “humane” in their prosecutions.
The church’s personal property–or what was left of it–was returned to the First Presidency on January 10, 1894.
The Manifesto declaring an end to officially sanctioned plural marriages also enabled the Mormons to achieve the goal of statehood, which had been denied them for over forty years.  Statehood gave them the prospect of getting rid, once and for all, of the unwanted and unfriendly federally appointed governors, judges, marshals, attorneys, and commissioners who had fought against them since 1852.  As part of the “deal” by which this was arranged, church officials are said to have given congressional and administration leaders to understand that they would support a proposition to prohibit forever the practice of polygamy in Utah; that the church would dissolve its Peoples’ Party and divide itself into Republican and Democratic supporters; and that the church would discontinue its alleged fight against Gentile business and relax its own economic efforts….The Raid had finally culminated in the long-sought goal of statehood, but had produced capitulation in many areas of Mormon uniqueness, not the least of which was the decline in the economic power and influence of the church.  The temporal Kingdom, for all practical purposes, was dead–slain by the dragon of Edmunds-Tucker.
So, what do you make of these events?  Did the church wimp out?
  1. Bruce Johns
    September 19th, 2009 at 11:26 | #1
    MH, you know my position on it but for those who don’t, I’ll preface it by saying that I consider myself a fundamentalist. So, consider that with my opinion.
    No, the Church didn’t wimp out. It was self-preservation and the people were tired of the persecution. It would be comfortable to Monday-morning-quarterback the whole thing and say that the members just didn’t have the intestinal fortitude to endure to the end. I can’t judge them because I wasn’t there…my family isn’t torn apart…I’m not in prison, etc.
    My beliefs are, of course, that John Taylor ordained certain men to continue the practice of plural marriage which continues today.
    In other words, plural marriage started out as a law of the priesthood, then became a law of the general Church, and has gone back to being a law of the priesthood. It’s really pretty simple.
    Records of the 1886 meeting are readily available. The arguement/misunderstanding always arises, of course, with the Church’s unwillingness to recognize that the priesthood can/has/does exist outside of the Church.
    So, no, the Church didn’t wimp out. They did what was practical and best for the majority of the membership at the time.
  2. September 19th, 2009 at 13:20 | #2
    In addition, we need to understand that polygamy is an eternal law. John Taylor said it in a revelation from the Lord that eternal laws cannot be repealed. But there are times where polygamy isn’t required and this is such a time.
    However it also should be realized that it’s been suggested it will come back during the millennium in the book “Mormon Doctrine”.
    For those who suggest it must always be practiced, consider the Book of Mormon. I don’t recall it saying anything about polygamy but there is a reference under Jacob I believe suggesting marriage was a man and a single woman.
    Oh and yes I do believe in polygamy. I am also a member of the LDS Church. No I don’t see a conflict there. I do believe the practice will return and today we’re not asked to live the principle. Just like there was a time where the Word of Wisdom wasn’t a requirement, things change. Always do. And some day it will return.
  3. Brent Hartman
    September 19th, 2009 at 18:20 | #3
    O.D.-1 was only Wilford Woodruff’s advice. “I now publicly declare that my advice to the Latter-day Saints is to refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by the law of the land.”
    Now read D&C section 98 and you will see why the manifesto means absolutely nothing, and why the first presidency and the quorum of the twelve failed to take the advice given in O.D.-1.
    “The Prophet did not say that any law passed by Congress is the supreme law of the land. He knew better. He knew that Congress would pass laws that would be invalid. What he said was this – ‘When a people or a church have received a divine command and a law is enacted against it, do they not know whether the law is constitutional or not, seeing that Congress is prohibited by that sacred instrument from passing any law respecting an establishment of religion? And if the Supreme Court, yielding to popular clamor against an unorthodox body rules that the unconstitutional law is constitutional, does that alter the stubborn, patient, invincible fact that the law is in violation of the great guarantee of religious freedom? Any man who says that he really and firmly believes a certain law of God binding on him, and who will not obey it in preference to a conflicting law of man or a decision of a court, has either an unsound mind or a cowardly soul, or is a most contemptible hypocrite.’ A law has been specially framed against the establishment of their religion.
    The issue is obedience to God or submission to man; choice between a divine decree about which they have no doubt, and a human enactment that they firmly believe to be unconstitutional and void. It is a matter of conscience” (Deseret News, July 6th, 1886)

No comments:

Post a Comment

Comments are not the responsibility of the blog owner. They do not necessarily reflect the views of the blog owner. They will be moderated from time to time. Blog owner reserves the right to remove offensive or commercial posts.